Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Ban on maverick historian overturned

Holocaust denial is rather mad so making it illegal just gives it credibility. Irving is however an extremely knowledgeable historian (he was the only historian who immediately picked the fake Kujau "Hitler Diaries" as fake) so he rattles people. I am pretty certain that his holocaust denial is just a "stir", a publicity stunt. A few years ago, he referred to the color of his car as "n*gger brown", and if that is not a stir, I don't know what would be. He is a classic stirrer. He would seem to subscribe to the view that there is no such thing as bad publicity

Holocaust denier David Irving has won a surprise victory in a German court - thanks to the EU - that allows him entry into the country next year after overturning a ban that ran for another decade.

Irving, 74, has written a series of books about the Third Reich denying the historical evidence for the Holocaust of more than six million Jews during WW2.

A Munich court convicted and fined him in 1993 on a charge of insulting the memory of the dead after he disputed that the gas chambers at Auschwitz killed hundreds of thousands of Jews.

He told a group of right-wingers in 1993 that the Polish government built the chambers after the war to 'show tourists.' The Munich court imposed the entry ban at the same time as he was fined.

Irving applied last year for re-entry, but German authorities replied that he remained banned until 2022.

The administrative tribunal rejected this on Friday, ruling that this ban could not be upheld under European Union rules of free movement. This states: 'The free movement of persons is a fundamental right guaranteed to European Union EU citizens by the Treaties.

Mr Mililband said stars were wrong to make light of mental illness, as he unveiled plans to tackle what he called ‘the biggest unaddressed health challenge of our age’.

He added: ‘Jeremy Clarkson, who may have at least have acknowledged the tragedy of people who end their own lives, goes on to call them "Johnny Suicides" whose bodies should be left on train tracks rather than delay journeys.

Jeremy Clarkson caused controversy last December after criticising people who kill themselves on train lines. The notorious presenter said that anyone who committed suicide in this way was 'very selfish' for traumatising train drivers and inconveniencing commuters.

He went on to label those who killed themselves 'Johnny Suicide'.Clarkson claimed that train drivers involved in these cases are 'traumatised for life', and complained that passengers would 'have to sit around for hours'.

And he added that trains should not wait until all the remains of the body had been removed from tracks, saying that drivers should instead 'get the train moving as soon as possible and let foxy woxy and the birds nibble away at the smaller, gooey parts that are far away and hard to find.'

You may not agree with him but there is no doubt that many people think similarly. Only Clarkson is allowed to say it though. Whether Clarkson actually means it or believes it himself is an open question. He too is an undoubted stirrer, witness his Indian train stunt.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Unlike the United States, free speech is limited in Europe with numerous statutes that ban hate speech, blasphemy, Holocaust denial and even phrases deemed insults to bureaucrats and police officers.

When Germany's far right political party, Pro Deutschland, announced it planned to screen the video The Innocence of Muslims politicians responded by trying to tighten 140-year-old blasphemy laws. After all, Germany has an estimated 4 million Muslims and its embassy in Sudan was set on fire last month by men egged on by Islamist leaders.

But German Interior Minister, Hans-Peter Friedrich opposed the measures, saying that German law also protects "freedom of expression and artistic freedom."

German courts recently upheld free speech rights when politicians have tried to stop the airing of provocative material. In May, a small right wing party, Pro-NRW (North Rhine-Westphalia), held up anti-Islamic caricatures in front of mosques – some depicting Muslims as terrorists. Some Muslims in Bonn responded with violent protests.

Ralf Jaeger, interior minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, banned the cartoons. But the Federal Constitutional Court overruled him, saying the caricatures alone did not represent a grave enough threat to public order and security to limit free speech. Still, the court could have ruled otherwise.

After evangelist Keith Darrell took over the Rock last Monday, it became clear to me that if there's one thing that will get students interested in something other than texting and Facebook, it's a loud religious man telling them they will all burn in hell.

Part of me was proud that so many students took an interest in what was going on and felt free to express their own beliefs. The other part of me was kind of embarrassed that so many students didn't seem to understand how the First Amendment works.

The thing about freedom in this country is that, unless you're doing something illegal, people, whether they have the same beliefs as you or not, are allowed to express their opinions for everyone to hear.

While I was out on the Stratton Quadrangle surrounded by the crowd of my fellow students, I heard comments that I could do nothing but shake my head. Some were asking how the university could let such a person onto our campus. Others were doing everything they could to tear down Darrell and not let his voice be heard.

If students were offended by what Darrell had to say, they are obviously allowed to feel that way. I certainly did not agree with what he had to say, but that doesn't mean I have any right to stand there and tell him that he's not allowed to express his beliefs. By doing that, I would be giving up my right to express my own thoughts and opinions, and I most definitely do not want to live in that kind of world.

Monday, October 29, 2012

This happens every election. Leftists just can't handle disagreement with them. Mostly they just block their ears but sometimes they get overtly Fascist

A Vietnam-era veteran's Mitt Romney campaign signs were seemingly torched by vandals right in his front yard in Howley-in-the-Hills, Fla.

William Overbay claims someone lit the flags and signs in his yard on fire. The items were all supportive of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The vandals reportedly painted a message on his driveway and grass that read "Obama 4 life."

"This is the first thing I saw was this sign painted on my driveway," Overbay told WKMG in Orlando.

Police say no clues were immediately found that could identify the offenders.

But Overbay took the politically motivated attack personally because he fought for the country and all Americans' right to free speech.

"To give that many years for my country and to see it desecrated in such a despicable way angers me. We have freedom of speech and to desecrate any kind of signs is absolutely despicable and a violation of the constitution of the United States," he said.

The veteran says he plans to replace the torched signs and flags before the upcoming election.

The usual Leftist "projection": Seeing in others what is true of oneself

Rolling Stone cover, "Obama and the Road Ahead: The Rolling Stone Interview," by Douglas Brinkley: "We arrived at the Oval Office for our 45-minute interview . on the morning of October 11th. .

As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. . [S]he said, `Tell him: You can do it.'

Obama grinned. . `You know, kids have good instincts,' Obama offered. `They look at the other guy and say, "Well, that's a bullsh-ter, I can tell."'"

Sunday, October 28, 2012

After many years of battling by a Canadian pastor. It takes time but if you get a case into one of the higher Canadian courts you are much more likely to get free speech protection

A Canadian man has won the latest round in court battles to obtain free speech. His crime was saying something that offended a longtime liberal advocate.

Pastor Stephen Boisson wrote letters to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate, expressing his Christian views on homosexual behavior. But University of Calgary professor Dr. Darren Lund reported Boissoin to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, accusing him of violating the law because jos letters were published.

The Commission then ordered the pastor to stop expressing his views on the subject "for the rest of his life," according to the Alliance Defending Freedom, that he pay Lund $5,000, and that he provide a written apology to the offended professor, even though Boisson and Lund did not know each other, and even though the pastor's writings did not target Lund.

The case worked its way through the system, with Alberta's highest court ruling in favor of Boisson, saying the letters constituted an expression of opinion not likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt within the meaning of the law. So he was cleared of a charge of supposed "hate speech."

Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Benjamin Bull adds the court was critical of the law, and he believes that ought to be the end of the matter.

"Because the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, it's going to be extremely difficult for religious or political debate to be found in breach of Alberta's human rights laws," the attorney asserts.

Our campuses have become havens of bad ideas when it comes to censorship. Research by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE, where I work) reveals that 65% of the nation’s biggest and most prestigious universities have speech codes that either are flatly unconstitutional (at public colleges) or that violate free speech principles that they themselves espouse (at private colleges). This nationwide scheme of repression is the most systematic form of censorship that takes place on our nation’s campuses.

But then there are the individual cases — for instance, when a professor just takes a box cutter and cuts political speech he doesn’t like right off a wall.

This madness actually happened at Sam Houston State University in Texas last year, when Professor Joe E. Kirk decided that he didn’t like some of what was written on a “free speech wall” organized by student Morgan Freeman (no relation that I know of) and constructed by four student political groups. The wall was built to teach students about their free speech rights — and it certainly did so, although not the way they had intended. FIRE’s newest video has the story.

What did Kirk do? He objected to the fact that someone had written (warning, bad language coming) “f*ck Obama” on the free speech wall. He asked the students to cover it up. Considering that they were running a free speech wall, they refused. Kirk left and returned with a box cutter, and proceeded to physically cut the F-word off of the paper covering the wall.

“Hey! I don’t like swearing either!” you say. “Good for him!” Not so fast. This was hardly the only instance of that four-letter word on the wall. Whatever you may think of swearing (and it is constitutionally protected, particularly in the political context) the word is in common use at college, and it was written multiple times on the wall, including next to the name of President Bush. Kirk did not take any exception to those instances of the F-word. Nope, only for President Obama.

The students did exactly what you are supposed to do when you’ve been the subject of vandalism — they called the police. The campus police arrived, talked to the students and Professor Kirk, and proceeded to take Kirk’s side and threaten the students with a misdemeanor if they did not cover up the F-word everywhere on the wall! Realizing that their free speech wall had just become a government-approved speech wall, the students instead decided to quit and dismantle the wall.

Friday, October 26, 2012

American Atheists (AA), a non-profit devoted to advancing a secular cause, has, once again, launched an anti-Mormon campaign.

The organization’s new billboard in southern Florida takes specific and pointed aim at Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s faith. The message, which is intended to negatively frame The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, invokes both homosexuality and race. The billboard reads, “No Blacks Allowed. No Gays Allowed. Shame on Mormonism.”

Dale Jones, a spokesperson for the church, dismissed the ad in an email to CNN, writing, “This group seems not to know that there have been black members of the Church since our earliest history, and there are many faithful gay members of the Church today.”

Secret Service investigate after man hangs Obama effigy from a noose on his front lawn

Secret service intervening in a political issue?

Residents of a quiet southern California neighbourhood were shocked by a neighbour's decision to hang an effigy of President Obama in his front garden and even more astonished when the Secret Service came calling at his house a day later.

Agents arrived at the home of Eddie Million on Tuesday night after police received a complaint on Monday, and questioned the Moreno Valley man as to why he chose to hang a replica of the president from a tree.

Mr Million's tasteless Halloween decor has offended many as the image of Mr Obama - and in a wider context, an African American man - hanging from a noose, raised questions about the homeowner's motives and views on race.

An embarrassed Mr Million told The Press-Enterprise that the prank had not intended in any way to suggest he wished the president dead.

'This is just a misunderstanding. This is getting all blown out of proportion. It's down. It's gone. We didn't want to hurt the president,' said the flooring company owner. 'It was just for a party.'

'A noose is scary. It’s Halloween. We have zombies in the back - figures, ghosts, zombies,' he explained of his choice to attach the Obama mask to a body and hang it.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

College Bans Religious Homecoming Art‏

You would never think that the 1st Amendment guarantees you freedom to practice your religion!

Christian students at a Utah college said they were told by administrators that their homecoming decorations were “in poor taste” because they included religious messages and symbols, according to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court.

The Solid Rock Christian Club has also accused Snow College of infringing on free speech rights by reducing the group to a “second tier” status on campus. That means the group would no longer be able to reserve campus rooms, advertise events on campus or receive funding from student fees.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the club by the Alliance Defending Freedom.

“Colleges are supposed to be the marketplace of ideas, not centers of censorship,” said Travis Barham, of the Alliance Defending Freedom. “America’s colleges and universities should recognize that the First Amendment protects the freedom of all students to gather with those of like mind and to express their ideas, including religious students and religious ideas.

After the ADF sent a letter to the college, they received a reply from a Utah state assistant attorney general. The state official said religious views would continue to be prohibited from the homecoming event.”

Among those named in the lawsuit is Scott Wyatt, president of Snow College. He told Fox News that the lawsuit may be the result of a “simple misunderstanding.”

“This is a very small disagreement that we are working through,” Wyatt told Fox News. “I’m very optimistic we will come to a positive solution.”

Parents of children with special needs are demanding an apology from conservative political pundit Ann Coulter for tweeting after Tuesday's foreign policy debate that she approved of "Romney's decision to be kind and gentle to the retard [Obama]."

It appeared to be a response to critiques of Mitt Romney's debate performance, but it wasn't the first time Coulter used the "the r-word" during this election season. And, it's not the first time blogger Ellen Seidman has called her out on it.

"At this point, I'm thinking the woman must surely be aware that the word is offensive, and she chooses not to care. That's pretty vile and heartless," said Seidman, the mother of a special needs child who shares her world on the blog "Love that Max."

Still, the comment was favorited 1,215 times and earned 2,993 retweets as of this writing, presumably by a number of people who didn't find it offensive.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Libya Grand Mufti: Remove References to Democracy and Religious Freedom From School Textbooks

The Libya Herald reported on Thursday that the “Fatwa Office” has asked the Ministry of Education in Libya to remove passages related to democracy and freedom of religion from school textbooks.

“Libya’s Dar Al-Ifta’ (the Fatwa office), presided by Grand Mufti Sheikh Sadeq Al-Ghariani, has called on the Ministry of Education to remove passages relating to democracy and freedom of religion from school textbooks,” the article states.

The statement claimed the information in the textbooks about Greek democracy might be “too detailed” for students to comprehend and that references to freedom of belief and religion should be removed because “it suggests to younger students that they could choose any religion they wanted,” according to the article.

Despite their team’s stellar playing record, a group of Louisiana State University football fans is less-than-enthusiastic after the public college altered a photo to digitally-erase crosses that were painted on their chests.

The Photoshopped image came to the fans’ attention after the university sent out an e-mail about the Tigers’ recent win on October 13. In the picture, the religious symbol was noticeably scrubbed off of the Christians’ bodies.

The men depicted in the image call themselves “The Painted Posse,” a group of believers who are also avid fans. They are known, as CampusReform.org notes, for painting their bodies with LSU colors and crosses and attending every home game. When they saw the photo, devoid of the crosses, they were stunned.

The school wasted no time in admitting that the crosses were purposefully removed and that the action was taken in an effort to avoid offending non-Christians.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Antisemitism thriving in France

France has a large Muslim population of North African origin who do physically attack Jews at times so this is no surprise. Jewish organizations want Twitter to take the antisemitic tweets down but I think a better solution would be to ship the unhappy Muslim souls back to where they came from in North Africa. There would be no Jews to bother them there. Almost every last Jew was kicked out from there long ago

Twitter has been engulfed in a wave of French anti-Semitic posts using the hashtag #unbonjuif, meaning “a good Jew” in French.

The tweets were condemned by French anti-racist and Jewish organizations on Monday.

Typical tweets with the “good Jew” hashtag included phrases such as “A good Jew can pump up your tyre with his nose,” “A good Jew wears a Gucci kippa” or “A good Jew is a dead Jew,” reported Yediot Ahronot.

Lesbians celebrating a "homophobe"? Leftist thinking defies all reason. Because Farrakhan is both black and Muslim he has reached an unbeatable peak of holiness, apparently

Another local elected official has gone on record against hate speech following the ongoing controversy regarding hate leader Louis Farrakhan’s recent events in Charlotte and several LGBT-friendly elected officials’ appearances at them.

Farrakhan is a documented hate leader of the hate group Nation of Islam. Both have a history of anti-Semitism and anti-LGBT hostility, according to the Montgomery, Ala.-based Southern Poverty Law Center.

Mecklenburg County Commission Chairman Harold Cogdell, however, has said he had “no regrets” after attending a Farrakhan event and refused to condemn Farrakhan’s hate rhetoric. County Commissioner Vilma Leake was also at the Farrakhan events. She has not responded to repeated requests for comment.

Openly lesbian Charlotte City Councilmember LaWana Mayfield has taken center-stage in the controversy. She attended a Farrakhan speech on Oct. 13 at which she said the leader was “doing God’s will.” She has repeatedly refused to condemn the remarks.

Monday, October 22, 2012

Is "not optimal" the new word for "evil"?

The Left keep telling us that "There is no such thing as right and wrong" (except racism, intolerance and homophobia, of course). Obama appears to agree

The mother of an American diplomat killed during a terrorist raid on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi has hit out at Barack Obama for describing the attack as 'not optimal', saying: 'My son is not very optimal - he is also very dead.'

During an interview shown on Comedy Central, Obama responded to a question about his administration's confused communication after the assault by saying: 'If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.'

Speaking exclusively to MailOnline today, Pat Smith, whose son Sean died in the raid, said: 'It was a disrespectful thing to say and I don't think it's right.

'How can you say somebody being killed is not very optimal? I don't think the President has the right idea of the English language.'

Germans are clearly not as grown-up as Americans. There are some naughty words that they must not hear unless they go berserk. It's a wonder Germans are not embarrassed by such policies.

Twitter, for the first time since its launch in 2006, has blocked access to an account. German police call the neo-Nazi group that operates the account a criminal organization. The Nazis' tweets are blocked only in Germany, under Twitter's policy of "country-withheld content," the New York Times reported, in a first for the company that, up to now, has been almost entirely hands-off in terms of regulating content.

German authorities, who banned the group Besseres Hannover ("Better Hanover") last month, asked Twitter to disable the account entirely, but Twitter's remedy still allows access to the Nazis' tweets outside of Germany. The use of pro-Nazi rhetoric and symbols is illegal in Germany.

To some, Twitter's compromise with Germany represents a show of good will that could prevent a broader government crackdown on the service in the future, Gizmodo points out.

But to others, it’s a slippery slope: If Twitter will censor an account because a national government asks it to, what precedent and expectation does that set? Would Twitter censor the "illegal" accounts of rebels or dissenters at the request of Libya or Iran?

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Associated Press defends use of the term "illegal immigrant"

Rather a surprise

Terms like “undocumented” and “unauthorized” can make a person’s illegal presence in the country appear to be a matter of minor paperwork. Many illegal immigrants aren’t “undocumented” at all; they may have a birth certificate and passport from their home country, plus a U.S. driver’s license, Social Security card or school ID. What they lack is the fundamental right to be in the United States.

Without that right, their presence is illegal. Some say the word is inaccurate, because depending on the situation, they may be violating only civil, not criminal law. But both are laws, and violating any law is an illegal act (we do not say “criminal immigrant”). Finally, there’s the concern that “illegal immigrant” offends a person’s dignity by suggesting his very existence is illegal. We don’t read the term this way. We refer routinely to illegal loggers, illegal miners, illegal vendors and so forth. Our language simply means that a person is logging, mining, selling, etc., in violation of the law — just as illegal immigrants have immigrated in violation of the law.

First, Christians were banned in Dearbornistan. Now, it's Jews who are illegal. Why not just declare the place an outpost of Saudi Arabia and be done with the whole business.

"On 9-14-2012, Dearborn Fordson High School principal called the police on me for driving with 2 Israeli flags on my truck."

When the students began their assault he rolled down his window asking them to stop. After they pulled him over the police used the rolled down window as a pretext to accuse him of instigating the altercation.

While being questioned by the police in front of the high school the reader received death threats. The police denied hearing them though the individuals involved were only a few feet away.

"The Dearborn police were one car behind me when this student threw a bottle on my windshield. The police did not stop the student, but instead stopped me for 30 minutes asking me why I would display Israeli flags on my truck."

Saturday, October 20, 2012

The pains of Proflish

"In normal English, 'parse' means to identify the grammatical functions of the words in a sentence. But in Proflish, the professor tongue, which is the status language of planet earth, the language to which all other languages aspire, 'parse' means anything you want it to mean.

In this case, it appears to mean something like 'look at.' Well, says the Martian, why can’t he just say 'look at?' That’s sort of a puzzler, but I can think of two, related reasons. One, he would be understood immediately, and that is not the goal of anyone speaking Proflish. Two, he would reveal the fact that he is saying nothing."

So what happened after the Big Bird comment? The Web filled with Big Bird spoofs, and the folks at "Saturday Night Live" (yes, I watch and laugh regardless of who might be the target) brought Big Bird himself onto the program. To SNL's credit, they also captured Vice President Biden's outrageous reactions in the VP debate perfectly.

But the media that reports on this stuff are neither as humorous nor as evenhanded. They proved that the day after the debate, when major news sites began making a huge issue out of Romney's description of how he sought to put more women into government after he was elected as governor in Massachusetts. He said that when he requested help in finding more qualified women, groups brought "whole binders" full of women ... oh, how horrible. Suddenly, the media had their next gaffe, and within hours Big Bird was pictured on the Web holding -- oh, yes -- a binder that said "women" on front of it.

Editorials popped up saying Romney had destroyed the advantage he was gaining among female voters. One news service listed the campaign's major "oops" moments as: Clint Eastwood's speech at the GOP convention, Romney's Big Bird reference and Romney's "binder" comment. Wow, all Republican/Romney gaffes -- none by Obama or the Democrats.

Let's be honest. Romney became Gov. Romney when binders were still being used to hold generated lists and other documents. And he filled his administration with bright and capable individuals, both male and female. Those who know his staff then and inner circle now are well aware of this fact.

But suddenly his two "debate" gaffes are merged into an alleged war on children and Big Bird, as well as an attack on women in the workplace. And this is how real media bias works -- not in your face, but building on one little comment linked to the next one.

Friday, October 19, 2012

Texas AG intervenes in cheerleader banner dispute

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said Wednesday he will defend high school cheerleaders who want to use Bible verses on banners at football games.

Abbott has filed court papers to intervene in a lawsuit that cheerleaders at Kountze High School filed against the school district complaining that a new policy violated their freedom of speech. In September, district officials told the cheerleaders to stop using Bible verses at football games after the Freedom From Religion Foundation complained.

The atheist group argued that using banners with phrases such as, "I can do all things through Christ that strengthens me," violates the First Amendment prohibition on the government establishing a religion.

After the school told the cheerleaders they could no longer use Bible verses, they filed suit in Hardin County district court. State District Judge Steve Thomas put a hold on the new school policy while he considered the arguments, and the cheerleaders continued to make the banners. He is expected to rule Thursday.

Abbott said that since the cheerleaders create the banners without school funding, they qualify as free speech and should not be banned.

SO now it’s a thought crime to regard heterosexuality as the norm in human relationships. This is called “heterosexism”, joining racism and sexism as the new no-go zone, and the Proud Schools pilot program rolled out to 12 Sydney and Hunter high schools over the past two terms is aimed at stamping it out.

The program defines “heterosexism” as the practice of “positioning heterosexuality as the norm for human relationship”, according to the Proud Schools Consultation Report. “It involves ignoring, making invisible or discriminating against non-heterosexual people, their relationships and their interests. Heterosexism feeds homophobia.”

So there it is. If you think the vast majority of people are attracted to the opposite sex and that heterosexual human relationships are the norm, you are feeding homophobia.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

"Dixie" is actually about a black and was popularized by black minstrel shows so it is NOT anti-black

A Texas high school has reportedly silenced its traditional rendition of “Dixie” during football games, as communities in the Lone Star state debate how to handle vestiges of the Old South.

The Austin American-Statesman reports that Travis High School in Austin began singing “Travis Fight” after a Rebels score during football games instead of the long tradition of singing “Dixie.”

Austin school district spokesman Alex Sanchez said teachers at the 1,300-student school have discussed changing the school’s fight song for a year. Austin’s school board didn’t vote on the song change, he said.

Officials at Hays High School in nearby Buda, meanwhile, have decided to keep the traditional fight song despite a racially-charged incident in May in which two students allegedly wrote racial slurs and urinated on the door of an African-American teacher.

Britain’s ambassador to Chile has been threatened with violence by furious Argentines over a joke he made about their football team and the Falklands conflict.

Jon Benjamin made the faux pas on Twitter to his 10,000 followers when he tried to send a private message to a friend.

It referred to a lewd terrace song often sung by Chilean football fans in rhyming Spanish when they play teams from the neighbouring country: ‘Argentines, gays, they took the Falklands off you because you are cowards.’

In a reference to the offensive song, Mr Benjamin, 49, boasted that he was attending a game: ‘Which islands did they take off who and for being what? Perhaps I’ll discover the answer at the national stadium. I’ve already got my ticket.’

The message upset Argentine fans, who took to Twitter to threaten the diplomat, who is in his first posting as ambassador. One threatened to beat him up if he ever met him while another called him a ‘clown’.

I can't say I sympathize in any way with Argentines. The invasion of the Falkland Islands was very popular in Argentina but if you were a Falkland Islander, would YOU want to be governed by Argentines? Ever since Peron (a Fascist) Argentina has been an economic basket case. And their present economic policies are just as stupid and destructive as ever. And most of them still think that Peron was a great guy.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Anything that looks like a gun must not be seen at a Canadian university

Public ridicule forced a backdown, however

The St. Mary’s University Student Association (SMUSA) in Halifax, Nova Scotia has changed its position on a campus-wide ban on the old Nintendo Zapper toy gun used in the classic game “Duck Hunt,”

The controversy first began when the SMUDent Gaming Society released a promotional poster that displayed the Nintendo Zapper. The poster was determined to be unacceptable by the St. Mary’s Student Association because it showed a “gun” — even if it referring to an orange toy gun with a long cord coming out of it.

However, after being pelted with criticism, the organization has decided to back down and allow the organization’s planned activities to proceed.

Now SMUSA is saying the poster ban was just a misunderstanding. This was after they cancelled an interview with Sun News to talk about the issue.

As a result of the “misunderstanding,“ the SMUDent Gaming Society was forced to scrap their plans to host a ”Duck Hunt” party on campus because the plastic toy guns with cords coming out of them were not allowed on school property.

News of the zapper ban at student functions has provoked a flood of responses from Sun News Network Viewers and Sun paper readers. About half an hour after giving the interview to Sun, SMUSA reversed direction, saying that Duck Hunt, complete with zappers, would be allowed at the Friday pub function after all.

The ABC television network has removed jokes about President Obama and former President Clinton from an upcoming episode of “Last Man Standing,” according to the show’s star – Tim Allen. Allen told The New York Post that the Disney-owned network yanked a number of political jokes from an episode that is scheduled to air just before the presidential election.

Allen’s character, a conservative, is trying to persuade his daughter to vote for Mitt Romney.

The ABC standards department ordered the show to remove one joke that had Allen’s character called Obama “a communist.”

“We also had this line about the Clintons where I say, ‘They’re like shingles; just when you think they are gone, they pop back up,’” he added.

That line was deleted, too.

“ABC won’t allow certain buttons to be touched,” wrote Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the MRC. “It’s almost funny that the censors would be so lax on sex and violence, but will clamp down like Bonnie Bluehair on Obama jokes. Is this their only Thou Shalt Not?”

The whole episode is rather Soviet. The banned bit was apparently meant to ridicule conservatives but the total lack of humor at ABC management meant that they were too dim to see that. The Soviets were humorless too. They banned P.G. Wodehouse even though his comic novels could well be seen as excellent propaganda against a class system. Wodehouse always portrayed the aristocrat as dim and the worker as smart.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Must not sign a petition seeking a referendum on homosexual marriage

Homosexuality trumps democracy, it seems.

Gallaudet University President T. Alan Hurwitz suspended the school's chief diversity officer Wednesday after he was made aware that the diversity office, Dr. Angela McCaskill, had signed the marriage referendum petition in Maryland.

In a statement to staff and students of the D.C. university for the deaf and hard of hearing that was sent about noon today, Hurwitz said: "I want to inform the community that I have placed Dr. Angela McCaskill on paid administrative leave effective immediately. It recently came to my attention that Dr. McCaskill has participated in a legislative initiative that some feel is inappropriate for an individual serving as Chief Diversity Officer; however, other individuals feel differently."

Maryland's marriage equality bill was passed earlier this year, but opponents circulated a petition to subject the bill to a referendum vote this fall. The opponents received sufficient signatures, including an individual with McCaskill name and address, according to a document published by the Washington Blade, and the referendum is Question 6 on the November ballot.

According to her Gallaudet biography, McCaskill has worked at the D.C. college for 23 years in various capacities. On January 3, 2011, she was named deputy to the president and associate provost of diversity and inclusion. She also, according to her bio, was the first deaf African-American female to earn a Ph.D. from Gallaudet University.

Regarding the timing of her leave, first reported by ABC 7 News's Mike Conneen, Hurwitz said in the statement, "I will use the extended time while she is on administrative leave to determine the appropriate next steps taking into consideration the duties of this position at the university. In the meantime an interim Chief Diversity Officer will be announced in the near future."

Sweden's tradition of gender equality has famously put more mums in the workplace while rising numbers of dads stay at home. Now advocates have a new frontier: they're pushing for a gender-neutral pronoun, "hen", to be added to "han" (he) and "hon" (she).

"There's almost nothing left to do in the field of gender equality, so people are suggesting increasingly strange ideas," said independent journalist Elise Claesson, partly amused and partly irritated by the debate.

The word "hen" was coined in the 1960s when the ubiquitous use of "han" (he) became politically incorrect. It was about "simplifying the language" and avoiding the clumsy "han/hon" (s/he) construction, said linguist Karin Milles.

Another linguist, Mikael Parkvall, is less convinced, however.

"The notion that language determines our way of thinking is very popular, but those of us who are specialists are pretty sceptical," he said.

"The link between language and thought is not very strong, and you don't become more gender equal by using a neutral pronoun," he added, citing Mandarin, the language of male-dominated China, as an example of a language that has such a pronoun.

Wallner said he believes "hen" will soon be as free of controversy as the 1970s decision to abolish the plural form for addressing strangers and instead use the more informal singular.

I am pleased to see that a lot of Swedes regard the whole thing as tedious. Still, "Ms" as an alternative to "Mrs" and "Miss" seems to have caught on in the English-speaking world so you never know.

The last paragraph of the article above will be incomprehensible to people who speak English only but it is a huge step in European terms. The polite plural is a feature of all European languages I thought -- but not in Sweden now. Linguistic change is clearly possible but whether it achieves anything other than satisfying busybodies is the question.

Monday, October 15, 2012

The guy was just a diet blogger. The case was dismissed on the technicality that the State had only written to him, not yet harmed him so far

“A state licensing board in North Carolina tried to suppress a blogger who talked up and advised people on the health benefits of the ‘paleo’ diet (that is, eating as we think cavement ate, no grains or processed foods), telling him directly what he could or could not say about his belief that the high-meat, low-carb diet helped him with his diabetes. The case was dismissed by a federal court late last week.”

The State can tell you what to eat? It's not far from that. You apparently need a license to give diet advice in North Carolina. I am pleased that the matter is going to a higher court. I can't see how the ruling is consistent with the 1st Amendment.

Diet is a well known means of dealing with diabetes so this guy is not way outside the ballpark -- though I myself doubt the generalizability of his claims.

BBC Arabist, Malise Ruthven, says that only "scholarly" criticism of Islam should be allowed

It's a very long-winded article (in the NYT, unsurprisingly) but the last 3 paragraphs of it (below) seem to be the point of it. Ruthven burnishes his own scholarly status by using such hard words as "aniconic" and "docetic" but shows how much he really knows by approving of the term "Christianist" as a description of Pamela Geller. She is Jewish and needs no assistance from Christians or Christianity to form her opinion of jihadists. Ruthven is obviously far too grand to listen to or respect "ordinary" people

These contrasting responses suggest the possibility of a two-pronged approach to the free speech issues raised by images of the Prophet. “Insulting” the Prophet with the intent of stirring up hatred might be categorized as a form of “hate speech” comparable to anti-Semitism, racism, flag desecration, or Holocaust denial, which are forbidden by law in many countries (though not the US, where a proposed amendment protecting the US flag failed to pass by a single Senate vote in 2006), because the sacred image of the Prophet has become a fundamental part of how Muslim communities have come to define themselves. While in practice it may be difficult to draw the line between “insult” and “criticism,” if there is a distinction it must lie in intention.

In Britain, for example, the government’s effort in the wake of the Rushdie Affair to extend the race relations act in response to Muslims protests opened a legal minefield. It is now an offense (under the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act) to display by writing or other visible representation material that is “threatening, abusive or insulting” with the intention of causing “harassment, alarm or distress.” Yet the law paradoxically protects the right to “insult and abuse” with a proviso stating that nothing in it “shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents.” Intention is clearly the key. Had he been required to defend his book under the 2006 act, Rushdie and his lawyers would doubtless have argued that the storm of controversy it raised was an unintended consequence of a misreading (mostly by politically-motivated parties) of his “serious” novel.

Critical analysis of the Quran that challenges the myths surrounding the primal figures of Islam is another story entirely: it is something that scholars of other faiths have been engaged in since the Enlightenment. Since the nineteenth century, Islamic scholars such as Sayyed Ahmad Khan and Chirag Ali have questioned the authenticity of many of the hadiths (verbally transmitted reports) on which the earliest chroniclers relied for their accounts of the Prophet’s life, exemplary behavior, and ministry. It would be utterly wrong for the law to discriminate in favor of (or effectively against) Muslims by insulating them from this process, because critical engagement—about science, religion, and politics—is a necessary precondition for communities to flourish in a cosmopolitan and increasingly globalized world.

It's absurd to expect everybody to speak with academic precision and yet that is essentially what this guy is proposing. What about having one law for all and not a law that suits just a few?

Treating everyday speech as scientific or scholarly speech is a very common bad-faith ploy. For instance, if a man says: "Blacks are a criminal lot", he will immediately be hounded as some sort of terribile bigot who is obviously wrong because some blacks are not criminal. But that is bad faith. That all blacks are criminal is unlikely to be what the speaker meant and instead of people trying to understand what the speaker is really saying he gets condemned.

If however, someone says that "the incidence of criminality is much higher among blacks than whites" he gets a pass. I know. I once said something similar and even got it published in one of the academic journals of sociology -- of all places. But I did have some striking statistics on my side.

There is far too much "hunting" of people according to the way they express themselves. In a decent world one would try to understand what the average person was saying rather than pouncing on him with vile and superficial allegations because his speech is a bit careless. That someone has the background to speak in an academic way is no guarantee of wisdom, rightness or moral probity. The praise recently lavished on the unrepentant and disgusting Communist Eric Hobsbawm is evidence enough of that.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

British thug who wore T-shirt with 'one less pig' slogan hours after murders of two policewomen is jailed for eight months

Rather lame that a opinion you write on your shirt can send you to jail but that's Britain

A man who wore a T-shirt with offensive comments about the murders of Pc Fiona Bone and Pc Nicola Hughes on it just hours after they died has been sentenced to eight months in prison.

Barry Thew, 39, who has a lengthy criminal record, wore a T-shirt with ‘One less pig: Perfect justice’ hand-written on it the same day the two women police officers were gunned down.

Thew, of Radcliffe, Greater Manchester, admitted a Section 4A Public Order Offence (displaying writing or other visible representation with intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress) and was sentenced at Minshull Street Crown Court today.

He was jailed for four months and ordered to serve another four months, consecutively, after he admitted breaching a suspended sentence order imposed for an earlier offence of cannabis production.

The sentence, at Manchester's Minshull Street Crown Court, means he was jailed for a total of eight months. He will likely serve only half of that in custody.

Thew, who has 29 sets of previous convictions for 77 offences since 1983, appeared shaken as he was led away from the dock to serve his sentence.

Mr Duke said Thew has a long-standing dispute with Greater Manchester Police over the death of his son three years ago and repeated 'stop and search' procedures. 'It is an on-going dispute between Mr Thew and Greater Manchester Police. He feels victimised and picked on.

PCs Nicola Hughes, 23, and Fiona Bone, 32, were killed on duty in a gun and grenade attack after they responded to a routine call about reports of a burglary at an address in Abbey Gardens.

Dale Cregan, 29, has been charged with their murders, the murders of father and son David and Mark Short and four other counts of attempted murder.

Had he made the same joke in character as either Edna or Sir Les, it would have passed unremarked

AN agent for Barry Humphries has apologised for any offence caused by the entertainer's comments referring to the eye shape of new Australians.

Famous for his much-loved and outspoken characters Dame Edna Everage and Sir Les Patterson, Humphries, 78, offered his take on Australian citizenship as his wife, Lizzie Spender, joined the dinky di ranks in London.

"At least my wife came to our country voluntarily and not against her wishes. She has the right-shaped eyes. A lot of new Australians are Chinese," London's Evening Standard newspaper quotes Humphries as saying after his wife's citizenship ceremony this week.

Spender, 62, Humphries' fourth wife of 22 years, is most eligible to join the antipodean clan, according to her spouse. "She's a lot more Australian than our Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who is a 10-pound pom with an Adelaide accent," he continued.

A spokesman for Humphries offered an apology on Friday to anyone who took offence at the comments. "He would never want to offend anybody ... a lot of what Barry says to the press is in jest," the spokesman told AAP.

Friday, October 12, 2012

9th Circus uses delaying tactics to block free speech

SCOTUS has held that the ability to spend as much as you like in support of candidates you agree with is an important part of free speech, including spending by corporations. The 9th circus thinks it is a law unto itself, however

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Montana's campaign donation limits, telling the federal judge who struck down the limits that the panel needs to see his full reasoning so it can review the case.

The court intervened late Tuesday less than a week after the judge's decision opened the door to unlimited money in state elections - during the height of election season.

In response, U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell issued a 38-page conclusion Wednesday morning that reinforced his earlier decision finding that the state's limits are too low to allow effective campaigning. He suggested the state Legislature would have a "clean canvas" to perhaps establish new, higher limits that could meet constitutional muster.

The 9th circuit did not immediately respond, leaving the state limits in place - for the time being. The legal back and forth came with less than a month until Election Day.

One of the attorneys working for the Washington D.C.-based American Tradition Partnership, a group at the center of several Montana cases, said they hope the appeals court will lift its stay in the wake of Lovell's full decision.

Montana has seen many of its laws struck down in the wake of the Citizens United decision that opened the door for more corporate spending in federal races, citing freedom of speech issues.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Jewish choir silenced

Are planting trees, building parks and setting up nature reserves “war crimes”? Apparently so for pro-Palestinian activists who on October 4th stormed a concert of elderly Israeli singers raising money for the Jewish National Fund’s (JNF) efforts to rebuild the Carmel Park in Haifa that suffered a devastating forest fire in 2010.

It’s happened at concerts, dance performances and on campus: pro-Palestinian activists speaking their minds, or rather shouting their pre-planned talking points, while at the same time manipulatively blocking Israeli artists’ and supporters’ own right to free speech. And like in past cases, this one pitted protesters vs. audience members in physical scuffles, shoving, and knocking each other to the ground.

It hardly matters that this latest protest occurred in Berlin; in the past these orchestrated interruptions have targeted Israel-supporting speakers across American college campuses, at times with the help of Occupy Wall Street activists.

The Israeli choir Gevatron was performing at a JNF fundraiser in a Berlin church when suddenly about a dozen pro-Palestinian activists barged in, shouting, unfurling banners and throwing leaflets into the audience.

Direct Action Berlin insists its objectives are not anti-Semitic. In a statement it posted on its Facebook page after the protest, it wrote: Resisting apartheid is not antisemitism. Resisting war crimes is not antisemitism. Critic against Israel is not antisemitism.

“The anti- Semitic character of the ‘protest’ was made clear through two points.” First, he cited the slogan “From the river to the sea: Palestine will be free,” which “can only mean ‘free from Jews.’”

It shows the complete dishonesty of the Left when they call Israel an "Apartheid state" -- when it is in fact the Arab states that practice Apartheid -- witness the severe restrictions on Christians in Saudi Arabia. There are no such restrictions in Israel.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Self-stimulated orgasm at Vassar?

Most of these things at colleges turn out to be provocations by Leftists. This is likely another such. But it makes a great occasion to bask in self-righteousness.

I note that the college rag refers to it as: "Recurrant hate speech". An inability to spell at Vassar? They seem to think that hate speech has something to do with dried fruit. What about some sultana hate speech instead?

Within the span of one week, two instances of graffitied hate speech have appeared in Jewett House. The first, which read “I hate niggers,” was forcefully etched with a ballpoint pen onto a west second floor bathroom stall and reported on Sunday, Sept. 23.

The second, which read “She’s just asking for it”, was written in pink lipstick in the elevator and discovered on Friday, Sept. 28.These incidents, each targeting a specific identity-based group, were both swiftly responded to within and outside of Jewett House.

President Catharine “Cappy” Bond Hill sent out an all-campus email the day of the meeting, alerting the Vassar community to the offensive message and detailing reactive steps that were being taken. “As my statement to the community indicated, the graffiti found on campus violated our core values as a community,” wrote Hill in an emailed statement.

Tuesday, October 09, 2012

Censoring of Conservatives Proves Liberals' Intolerance

By Bill Donohue

In the course of just one week, I had my speech squashed on three different occasions by the cultural elites. Though I’ve been slapped by the censorial hand of liberals many times before, never have I experienced it so forcefully within such a short period of time.

On September 27, I held a press conference outside the Edward Tyler Nahem gallery in midtown Manhattan to protest an exhibit by Andres Serrano featuring “Piss Christ,” the infamous photo of a crucifix submerged in a jar of the artist’s urine. After addressing the media, I sought to see the exhibit but was stopped in the building’s lobby by gallery officials. I was the only person denied. My offense? They objected to the content of my remarks to the media.

Last month we learned that beginning on October 17, FX will air “American Horror Story: Asylum.” The entire series depicts a habit-wearing promiscuous nun who beats inmates in a home for the criminally insane; for good measure, a doctor tortures his patients in this evil Catholic institution.

I decided to write a full-page ad critical of the series, seeking to place it in The Hollywood Reporter. We were led to believe that everything was fine, including our credit card info, but then we learned via an email on October 1 that the ad had been rejected. Lynne Segall, the publisher, nixed it saying the ad’s message “was not appropriate.”

None of this would matter so much if it were not for the myth that liberals are tolerant, and conservatives are intolerant. Wherever liberals dominate — in the artistic community, Hollywood, the media, education, publishing — there is no shortage of attempts to muzzle the speech of conservatives. They are the masters of intolerance.

Gary Lineker has been forced to apologise after accidentally ridiculing two Muslim footballers during a match commentary on TV.

When the players celebrated a goal by dropping to their knees and bowing their heads in the Islamic prayer position, Lineker said they ‘ate grass’.

The gesture is often used by Muslim players to celebrate.

He was commentating on Al Jazeera TV, which is mainly aimed at audiences in the Middle East and has a huge Islamic audience.

Lineker, who is one of the BBC’s biggest faces in sport, has a clause in his contract that allows him to freelance for the other channel.

The gaffe was made during Wednesday night’s Champions League game between Schalke and Montpellier when discussing the French side’s opening goal. He said: ‘A terrific effort from Karim Ait-Fana, who scored from just outside the area and then ate grass .... as you do.’

One viewer wrote on Twitter: ‘Lineker’s comment about Muslims [is a] very stupid remark and [one of] sheer ignorance.’

Monday, October 08, 2012

DC to get anti-Jihad ads too

The D.C. transit system must allow a pro-Israel ad that equates Muslim radicals with savages, a federal judge ruled Friday. A spokesman for the Metro system said it would comply with the judge’s decision and that the advertisements would go up over the weekend.

“The result is absolutely correct,” said David Yerushalmi, a lawyer representing the American Freedom Defense Initiative, the organization behind the advertisements. “There simply was no way under the First Amendment jurisprudence that we have today that this ad should not have gone up when contracted.”

The one-page ruling from U.S. District Judge Mary Collyer follows a similar court order in New York that cleared the way for anti-jihad ads to go up in that city’s subway system last month. The ads read: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

The New York ads went up in 10 stations across Manhattan on Sept. 24. Since then, two religious groups say that, starting Monday, they’ll hang ads urging tolerance alongside the anti-jihad ones. The ads also appeared recently on city buses in San Francisco, where some have been defaced or have had words removed.

Every once-in-a-while a story emerges that distinguishes itself as too-good-to-be-true, but somehow — the facts seem to check out. Last October, TheBlaze reported on one of these uniquely bizarre stories when we brought you the details surrounding “Zombie Muhammad,” an atheist activist who was purportedly attacked by a Muslim during a Halloween parade in Pennsylvania.

While the assault was surprising enough in itself, the court battle that followed was equally unusual (it ended up being dismissed under curious circumstances). The crime was carried out by Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim immigrant. According to numerous media accounts, the defendant didn‘t know that it’s perfectly legal to insult the prophet in America, so when he saw Ernest Perce V dressed in his Zombie Muhammad costume, he allegedly attempted to physically stop the presentation of anti-Islamic sentiment.

After Perce notified a police officer about what unfolded, the situation intensified. Charges were brought before Cumberland County Magisterial District Judge Mark Martin but, despite an admission at the scene of the crime by Elbayomy that he had grabbed Perce’s sign and pulled his beard, the judge inevitably dismissed the charges for lack of admissible evidence.

The dismissal, itself, angered some onlookers, but the bigger issue seemed to be Martin’s courtroom rebuke of Perce. In handling the case, the judge spoke out against the atheist, telling him that he was wrong for insulting Muslims and, at one point, likening him to a “doofus.”

“What you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive,” Martin told Perce. “If I were a Muslim, I’d find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your bounds or first amendment rights.”

Many saw these comments and the dismissal of the case as evidence that sharia (Islamic law) had crept its way into the courtroom. As a result of supposedly questionable details surrounding the dismissal, on September 10, The Legal Project, part of the Middle East Forum, filed a formal request for an investigation into Martin and his alleged judicial misconduct.

In the document that was submitted to the judicial conduct board, the group, on behalf of Perce, called for the judge’s removal from the bench. While Martin has apparently already been reprimanded privately by the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board, the group that oversees judicial action considers the case closed.

The arresting officer, Police Sgt. Brian Curtis, though, was less than content with Martin’s explanation — and his ruling.

“I believe that I brought a case that showed proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the case was dismissed, and I was disappointed,” he said.

For now, Nunberg and Perce will avait a final determination, although there is a chance the board may simply ignore The Legal Project’s grievance.

Sunday, October 07, 2012

Facebook in Britain warns it will censor criminal 'tribute' pages

No freedom of opinion in Britain

Facebook's director of policy has warned that offensive "tribute" pages praising criminals, such as the alleged killer of Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes, the police officer shot in Manchester, will not be tolerated.

Simon Milner said there was "no grey area" on the issue and that Facebook would take immediate action against member who set up deliberately offensive groups. "Our terms of service are absolutely clear on this kind of thing," Mr Milner, who leads Facebook's British public policy unit, said.

His comments follow the arrest last month of a man who created a Facebook group devoted to Dale Cregan, which described the alleged murderer of Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes as a "legend".

"Every police officers death is a course (sic) for celebration," the group said.

John Tully, the Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, which represents rank and file officers in London, said the arrested man could have committed an offense under the Public Order Act.

Friday, October 05, 2012

Teacher Compares Student’s Romney Shirt to KKK Robe‏

A Philadelphia high school teacher is under investigation after she reportedly ordered a student to take off a t-shirt supporting Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and compared the shirt to a Ku Klux Klan sheet.

The incident occurred at Charles Carroll High School in Port Richmond. When the student refused the order, she tried to throw the girl out of class.

The teacher reportedly told the 16-year-old student that the high school was a “Democratic school” and then threatened to use a marker to cross out Romney’s name.

Philadelphia School District spokesman Fernando Gallard confirmed to Philly.com that, “a teacher made some comments to a student wearing a Romney t-shirt in their classroom.” “The comments were of a political nature, and also of a personal nature,” he told the newspaper. “We are looking into the comments, and the conduct of the teacher.”

Gallard said the student was well within her rights to wear the t-shirt and was not in violation of any school dress codes.

In the meantime, the teacher was switched out of the class “to allow the student to feel comfortable to come to the class.”Gallard said the student was within her rights.

The incident became public when the child’s father called radio station IQ 106.9 FM. “My daughter refused to leave the classroom or acknowledge this bullying,” he said.

Thursday, October 04, 2012

Intolerance in a Chicago Synagogue

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) swung by a Chicago-area synagogue for a worship service on the eve of Yom Kippur last week, upsetting congregants and provoking one man to mount a campaign for her Democratic challenger before the end of the night, the Chicago Tribune reports.

According to the Tribune, Rabbi Michael Siegel of Anshe Emet Synagogue observed protocol by offering a customary greeting to Bachmann during the services. While elected officials are traditionally acknowledged during such events at the temple, the presence of the conservative Minnesota firebrand prompted particular displeasure.

Some reportedly walked out of the ceremony, while Gary Sircus, a 25-year member of Anshe Emet Synagogue, voiced more active opposition to Bachmann's attendance.

"Our congregation values and embodies tolerance, compassion, respect for individual rights, intelligence, science -- all of the things that I think Michele Bachmann stands against," said Sircus, according to the Tribune

Bachmann has been a vocal supporter of Israel and an unabashed opponent of gay rights, an awkward policy duo on that particular night

Leftists just can't stand any views but their own. They are just angry people.

Bachmann is an evangelical Christian so her visit to a shul is a little surprising but it may have been to honor Yom Kippur

It's ironical that Bachmann's view of homosexuality is closer to what the Torah instructs (Leviticus 18:22) than were the views of the liberal Jews who criticized her presence. So the intolerant Jews on the occasion were actually being intolerant of their own religious laws.

You can hear some of the music of Yom Kippur (Kol Nidre) here. It is rather good musically. Quite operatic. Surprisingly, the words are not in Hebrew but in Aramaic -- the language of Jesus.

And the words of the Kol Nidre are rather disturbing. It says that all vows made by the participants are null and void. This has been widely interpreted as saying that Jews can break their promises with a clear conscience. You are not supposed to interpret it in that plain straightforward way these days, however. The Kol Nidre originated in the Middle Ages so I suspect that it originally had something to do with business relationships between Jews and Gentiles. Christians at that time often saw Jews as fair game and broke their promises to Jews so there may have been a need to return the compliment.

There have been many rabbis who have opposed use of the Kol Nidre and I agree with them, for what it is worth. It is an anachronism in my view and is dead against what the Torah commands (Deuteronomy 23:23). It should be abolished but sentimental attachment to it is now strong so I guess it will stay.

In recent months, there's been a lot of chatter on the interwebs about this thing called "gaycism" on the TV. As defined by Lauren Bans of GQ, gaycism is "the wrongheaded idea that having gay characters gives you carte blanche to cut PC corners elsewhere."

In her example, Bans cites shows like Modern Family and freshman comedy Partners as emblematic of this trend. Modern Family is an Emmy-juggernaut, a critical darling and a much-lauded champion of LGBT characterization on TV, but that progressivism comes at the expense of Gloria, the lone woman of color. Sofia Vergara is a terrific comedienne and kills in the role, but the brunt of her jokes revolve around her flimsy command of the English language. Gloria's B-story FOR AN ENTIRE EPISODE dealt with her use of malapropisms, like "doggy dog world" and "don't give me an old tomato," because being foreign is her whole purpose on the show. Oh, and having boobs.

King recently upped the gaycist ante with Two Broke Girls, a show the New Yorker referred to as "so racist it is less offensive than baffling." The show reduces black men to sweet ol' jive-talkers, Eastern Europeans to crazed sex hounds and Asian Americans to Long Duk Dong and "Yellow Panic" stereotypes. On the latter, Andrew Ti of "Yo, Is That Racist?" notes, "It's distressingly easy to imagine the writers sitting around and listing off every single ching-chong stereotype, ultimately deciding with some sorrow that a Fu Manchu mustache would be impractical for budget reasons."

Into this controversy steps The New Normal, the new Ryan Murphy show about two gay men who decide to raise a baby together, a show that marries Murphy's trademark tonal inconsistency "with more gay jokes and regular old racism than Gallagher's stand-up act." All of Murphy's shows have huge problems, and Glee has faced heavy criticism for not only being super racist, but also for being super transphobic, which was recently kiiiind of rectified by introducing the character of Unique, a young trans* woman of color. However, as the Cracked article on the show argues, the real problem is that everyone is a "something" on the show, and all the characters conform to broad caricatures, "like the awkward Jew with the afro, the black girl who always sings the big gospel notes, the gay kid with the great fashion sense, the overachieving Asian [and] the fiery, underprivileged Latina."

Wednesday, October 03, 2012

Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson breached BBC guidelines by comparing a Japanese car to people with growths on their faces.

A report by the the BBC Trust’s editorial standards committee (ESC) found he 'strayed into an offensive stereotypical assumption' with the scripted remarks during an episode of the hit motoring show.

A member of the public complained about the 'offensive' remarks after Clarkson likened the shape of a Prius campervan to someone with 'a growth on their face' and referred to it as the 'elephant car.'

The ESC said the show’s audience enjoyed the presenters’ 'sometimes controversial and forthright views' but ruled this remark 'played on a stereotypically negative reaction to facial disfigurement.'

'The committee concluded that this programme was in breach of the guidelines on harm and offence as the exchanges about facial disfigurement were not editorially justified and did not meet generally accepted standards in the context of their portrayal of a disability.' It upheld the complaint.

Clarkson actually said nothing about the elephant man -- a circus freak of the 19th century. Some people just put his words together that way. His description of the car was pretty spot-on. Only a Greenie could love it

Making general comments is a lot different from abusing individuals so I don't think this defence will get him far -- given Australian laws

A SELF-STYLED Muslim cleric accused of sending offensive letters to the families of soldiers who died in Afghanistan will this week tell the High Court charges against him should be dropped on the grounds they infringed his implied constitutional freedom of political communication.

Man Haron Monis is charged with 12 counts of using a postal service in a menacing, harassing or offensive way, a federal crime which carries a maximum two year jail sentence.

Mr Monis, also known as Sheikh Haron, has been fighting to have the indictment quashed since 2010 but has lost in the District Court and Court of Criminal Appeal. In June, he was granted special leave to appeal to the High Court, where he will argue the legislation is invalid because it substantially curtails the ability of citizens to participate in the political process.

Mr Monis allegedly sent a series of letters to the families of Private Luke Worsley and Lance Corporal Jason Marks, who were killed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008.

He is also charged over a letter he sent in 2009 to the family of the Austrade official Craig Senger, who was killed in the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta in 2007.

A key issue to be argued is the correct meaning of the word "offensive". In written submissions, Guy Reynolds, SC, for Mr Monis, said the law could catch general media material delivered by post, such as newspapers and magazines, which discuss political and government matters.

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

Very Canadian. Censorship as a means of expressing disapproval is childish -- like sticking your fingers in your ears. One would have hoped that the Canadian parliament was more mature than that

The right for MPs to say and discuss almost anything they want is one of the central privileges of Parliament, but a couple of divisive debates over the past week tested the thresholds of dialogue in the House of Commons.

In one case, two spokespeople from the Canadian Immigration Forum were barred from speaking at the Commons immigration committee Wednesday because content on their website was deemed offensive -- including an interview with Canadian white supremacist Paul Fromm.

Madi Lussier, one of the two witnesses from the Canadian Immigration Forum not permitted to speak to the Commons committee, wiped away tears as she expressed her frustrations. The group's website is mostly an aggregator of articles on different issues touching on immigration, but divided into provocative sections with names such as "Chinafication" and "Arabization."

She has advocated a moratorium on immigration for 50 years, and warned that "European" values might be at risk of disappearing in Canada.

NDP MP Jinny Sims was the first to argue against the group appearing. She said there are certain lines that cannot be crossed when allowing groups to testify at committee hearings.

"Well, I think (the website) definitely reflects the views of a white supremacist," Sims said.

But Arthur Schafer, director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba, says it's disappointing that the committee did not allow the Canadian Immigration Forum to appear.

"Every point of view -- however ugly and obnoxious most Canadians might find it -- should be allowed to be aired in hearings before our parliamentarians," said Schafer.

Washington state Board of Education pushes schools to replace their Native American mascots‏

Universities and colleges have been harassed over this for some years and now it seems to be the turn of the High Schools

The state Board of Education is making another attempt at encouraging Washington schools to replace their Native American mascots.

In the past decade, about 10 schools have given up their Indian mascots. But another 50, including tribal schools, are holding fast to their nicknames as warriors, braves, redskins and red devils.

The state board passed a resolution on Wednesday urging districts to stop using Native American mascots, but as board spokesman Aaron Wyatt acknowledges, it does not have the authority to mandate this change. There are no consequences for schools that do not voluntarily choose a new mascot, Wyatt said Friday.

Oregon's state Board of Education voted in May to ban Native American mascots, nicknames and logos. Schools in that state have five years to comply. Eight Oregon high schools are affected.

Washington's resolution, which is similar to resolution passed by the board in 1993, was inspired by research by the American Psychological Association citing the adverse effects of Native American mascots on students.

The resolution also mentions the widening achievement gap between Native American and other students and the call by a number of national organizations and tribes for this change.

Ten schools have changed their names in the past decade, including Eatonville Middle School, which went from the Warriors to the Eagles; Eisenhower Middle School in Everett, which went from the Warriors to the Patriots and Issaquah High School, which changed from the Indians to the Eagles.

About 10 tribal schools or those on Washington reservations also have Native American mascots, but the majority of schools in the state with Indian mascots are part of their community's long-standing history.

Monday, October 01, 2012

PRESIDENT OBAMA addresses the U.N. General Assembly. It sounds sort of reasonable until you think about it

"The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”

The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), an atheist activist non-profit, is advertising a new billboard that uses gay themes to argue against faith in the public sphere. The ad, which reads, “Ban Marriage Between Church and State,” was erected in Smithville, Missouri, in response to a separate, Christian sign reaffirming that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The new 14 by 48 foot atheist ad uses a rainbow, a symbol familiar to the gay community, to make its case. The “Ban Marriage Between Church and State” billboard was recently placed near an ad put up by Catholic Radio that reads, “1 Man, 1 Woman, Forever.”

Smillville resident Matt Gaines employed the FFRF to post the message after he saw the Catholic Radio ad and contended that it is overtly offensive to homosexuals.

Is the American national anthem politically incorrect? From the 4th verse:Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

Mohammad

The truth can be offensive to some but it must be said

"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane."

Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The double standard: Atheists can put up signs and billboards saying that Christianity is wrong and that is hunky dory. But if a Christian says that homosexuality is wrong, that is attacked as "hate speech"

One for the militant atheists to consider: "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -- Thomas Jefferson

"I think no subject should be off-limits, and I regard the laws in many Continental countries criminalizing Holocaust denial as philosophically repugnant and practically useless – in that they confirm to Jew-haters that the Jews control everything (otherwise why aren’t we allowed to talk about it?)" -- Mark Steyn

Voltaire's most famous saying was actually a summary of Voltaire's thinking by one of his biographers rather than something Voltaire said himself. Nonetheless it is a wholly admirable sentiment: "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I am of a similar mind.

The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.

Why conservatives should not respond to Leftist abuse: "Never wrestle with a pig, because you'll both just get dirty, and the pig likes it.”

The KKK were members of the DEMOCRATIC party. Google "Klanbake" if you doubt it

A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and "homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective discourse.

Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race. Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he could simply be mistaken or misinformed.

Categorization is a basic human survival skill so racism as the Left define it (i.e. any awareness of race) is in fact neither right nor wrong. It is simply human

Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?

If any mention of racial differences is racist then all Leftists are racist too -- as "affirmative action" is an explicit reference to racial differences

Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862

Gimlet-eyed Leftist haters sometimes pounce on the word "white" as racist. Will the time come when we have to refer to the White House as the "Full spectrum of light" House?

The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -- Judge Learned Hand

Mostly, a gaffe is just truth slipping out

Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.

It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away."

"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica

Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech

The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

I despair of the ADL. Jews have enough problems already and yet in the ADL one has a prominent Jewish organization that does its best to make itself offensive to Christians. Their Leftism is more important to them than the welfare of Jewry -- which is the exact opposite of what they ostensibly stand for! Jewish cleverness seems to vanish when politics are involved. Fortunately, Christians are true to their saviour and have loving hearts. Jewish dissatisfaction with the myopia of the ADL is outlined here. Note that Foxy was too grand to reply to it.

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here